This is a formal
grievance under ______________________(instruction
number) and a formal EEO Complaint under 5 U.S.C.
§2302(b)
related to discrimination against me in the following contexts:

1.
My religious beliefs.

2.
My national origin.

I will cite specific instances of illegal
discrimination by agents and employees of the Department of Defense and
then conclude with a suggestion on how best to remedy or redress these
grievances. There are three
counts or incidences of illegal activity described in this grievance which
must be addressed separately. I
will devote one section to each and then propose remedies that I think
would be in the best interest of the government to implement.
Among these remedies is my demand and formal request that _________________(name
of your organization) purge all references to social security
numbers from my personnel record. I
will then conclude my document by helping to frame the legal requirements
that the government must meet in its response to this grievance and
complaint in order to satisfy its burden of proof and its obligation to
respect my due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.

I am a Christian, which means that I profess faith in
the Lord Jesus Christ. I
regularly attend a nondenominational Christian church and also a home
bible study hosted by a fellow coworker here at _______________(name
of your organization ).
My wife and I were married by the Pastor at my church.
I also maintain a website that focuses on Christianity and
citizenship issues called “Family Guardian” at:

The website contains extremely detailed legal
research in a number of areas, and this document was prepared from the
materials on that website. Among
the many materials appearing on the website is a book I published
electronically entitled Social Security: Mark of the Beast.
The book analyzes the Social Security System from a legal
perspective to prove with legal evidence and cites from the Bible that the
program is completely inconsistent with and contradictory to the Christian
faith and to the Republican values of this country.
A free version of that book may be downloaded from that website in
Adobe Acrobat from at the following address:

I have also compiled a
very detailed study on the illegality of the way the IRS enforces what is
actually a completely voluntary income tax.
These findings are documented in a book that also appears on the
Family Guardian website entitled The Great IRS Hoax: Why We Don’t
Owe Income Tax available at:

2.
Participation in the Social Security program and the payment of
Social Security taxes amounts to becoming surety for the debts of the
government and of others. See
Ref. (6), section 2.8.11.

3.
The Bible says that Christians should not be surety for the debts
of anyone, including government. Prov.
11:15 and Prov. 17:18 say Christians should not be surety for their
neighbor.

“He
that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it: and he that hateth
suretiship is sure.” [Prov. 11:15, Bible, NKJV]

See
the following references:

3.1.
Ref. (5), section 10

3.2.
Ref. (6) section 2.8.7.

4.
Social Security Numbers are the “Mark of the Beast” described
in Revelations 13:16-18. See:

4.1.
Ref. (5), section 1.

4.2.
Ref. (6), section 2.8.7.

5.
The Bible in Revelations 19:19 identifies that political rulers,
and by implication public servants who are their agents, are the real
“beast”.

“And
I saw the beast, the kings [political rulers] of the earth, and their
armies, gathered together to make war against Him [Jesus] who sat
on the horse and against Hi army.” [Rev. 19:19, Bible, NKJV]

6.
Those who resist the mark and number of the beast, the Social
Security Number, will be given the Harps of God according to Rev. 15:2.
See Ref. (5), section 1.

7.
Those who resist the mark and number of the beast will avoid
God’s wrath according to Rev. 16:2.
See Ref. (5), section 1.

8.
Those who die resisting the mark of the beast will reign with
Christ according to Rev. 20:4. See
Ref. (5), section 1.

I believe every word of
the New King James Bible and every word in the Social Security
book with all my heart, and I have built my whole life around both.
My view of the world has been completely transformed by virtue of
my Christian faith and these and other books appearing on the Family
Guardian website. I therefore
believe that either accepting or using Social Security Numbers violates my
religious beliefs and that God will withdraw His sovereign blessings upon
my future life if I do not do everything in my power
eradicate the use of them from every aspect of my life.
I also believe that the reason the Bible has such strong things to
say about Social Security Numbers is the following characteristics that
they possess:

1.
They are issued by the government.

2.
They create a presumption that one is a “U.S. citizen”.
See 26 CFR §301.6109-1(g) says the following about this
presumption:

26 CFR §301.6109-1(g)

(g)
Special rules for taxpayer identifying numbers issued to foreign
persons--(1) General rule--(i) Social

security
number. A social security number is generally identified in the records
and database of the Internal Revenue Service as a number belonging to a
U.S. citizen or resident alien individual. A person may establish a
different status for the number by providing proof of foreign status with
the Internal Revenue Service under such procedures as the Internal Revenue
Service shall prescribe, including the use of a form as the Internal
Revenue Service may specify. Upon accepting an individual as a nonresident
alien individual, the Internal Revenue Service will assign this status to
the individual's social security number.

On
the other hand, the Bible also says that we should not be
citizens on earth because we belong to God, who created us. See:

2.1.
Ref. (6), section 4.1

2.2.
Philippians 3:20: “For
our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the
Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

2.3.
Hebrews 11:13: “These
all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them
afar off were assured of them, embraced them and confessed that
they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.”

2.4.
1 Peter 2:1: “Beloved,
I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from
fleshly lusts which war against the soul…”

2.5.
James 4:4: “Do you
not know that friendship [citizenship] with the world is enmity with God?
Whoever therefore wants to be a friend [citizen] of the world makes
himself an enemy of God.”

3.
SSN’s are used as a means of universal identification.
Universal identification simply facilitates gross violations of our
Fourth Amendment right of privacy. Freedom
cannot exist without privacy and we live in a free country.
Therefore, we cannot have a universal means of numerical
identification without violating the intent of the founding fathers to
impart to us privacy and sovereignty.

4.
The failure to use the Socialist Security Number results or can
result either directly or indirectly in the inability to buy or sell goods
or to obtain or maintain a job.

5.
Slave Surveillance Numbers are required by the government in order
to comply with illegal enforcement activities of the Internal Revenue
Service and state taxing authorities.

6.
The numbers are disclosed to agencies and organizations and third
parties who are outside my immediate work environment, which violates my
Fourth Amendment right of privacy unless I disclose it voluntarily, which
in this case I do not.

At the same time, I am
certainly not against the use of numbers for identification
within an occupational context, but only so long as the application or use
the numbers does not have any of the
characteristics listed above. For
instance, if _________________(name of your
organization) wants to assign individual employee numbers, then
I am OK with that so long as these numbers are not used outside
of _________________(name of your organization)
for any other purpose or disclosed to any third party without my written,
explicit, and advanced consent in each case.
The fact that such a system may not currently exist is simply not
my problem. Nor can the lack
of such a system create an emergency or “compelling public interest”
that could justify or warrant an invasion of my Constitutional rights by
the government. Under no
circumstances is the government authorized to violate the Bill of Rights,
emergency or not, financial problem or not:

I was born in Santa
Barbara, California on September 7, 1959 in Santa Barbara Cottage
Hospital. According to my
research on citizenship, I am not now and never have been a “U.S.
citizen”, but rather I am and always have been a “non-citizen U.S.
national” as defined in 8 U.S.C.
§1408, 8 U.S.C.
§1101(a)(22), and 8
U.S.C. §1452. See the
following references for further information on this subject:

1.
There are three definitions of the term “United States”
according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Hooven and Allison v. Evatt, 324
U.S. 652 (1945). See Ref.
(6), section 4.6.

3.
Basically, a “U.S. citizen” is a person born or naturalized in
the federal “United States”, also called the “federal
zone”. See Ref. (6),
section 4.11.3. I was not
born in the federal “United States”

4.
Basically, a “U.S. National” is defined in 8 U.S.C.
§1408(2)
as a person who was born outside the federal “United
States” to parents who at one time or another spent time in the federal
“United States”. See Ref.
(6) section 4.11.6.1.

5.
Ref. (7). Provides
evidence pointing to the fact that because federal statutes only apply
inside the federal United States in most cases, then to be born outside
the “United States”, so far as Title 8 of the U.S. Codes are
concerned, includes the status of being born in a state of the Union.
This is a direct result of the fact that the U.S. government has no
police powers within states of the union.
See:

5.1.
Ref. (6), section 4.8 entitled “The Federal Zone”.

5.2.
Ref. (6), section 4.9 entitled “Police Powers”

Even if the government wants to assert that I was at
one time a “U.S. citizen”, the status of being a “U.S. citizen” is
defined as also including “U.S. national” status under 8 U.S.C. §1401
and I have renounced the citizenship portion of that imputed
dual status by noticing the Secretary of State as required under 8 U.S.C.
§1481(a)(6). My right of
expatriation or renunciation of any aspect of citizenship that I find
objectionable is my natural right and that right has been upheld by the
federal courts. See Ref. (6),
section 4.11.9.

The status of
citizenship involves two critical factors that must
coincide: 1.
Domicile; 2. Intent.
Even if I maintain a domicile in a geographical jurisdiction that
would qualify me to be a citizen of that jurisdiction, I must alsointend
to be a citizen to in fact be one.

“The
fourteenth amendment does not make a resident in a state a citizen of such
state, unless he intends, by residence therein, to become a
citizen.”

“”Citizenship’
and ‘residence,’ as has often been declared by the courts, are not
convertible terms. Parker v. Overman 18 How. 141; Robertson v. Cease, 97
U.S. 648; Grace v. American Cent. Ins. Co., 109 U.S. 283; S.C. 3 Sup.Ct.
Rep. 207; Prentiss v. Barton, 1 Brock. 389. Citizenship is a status or
condition, and is the result of both act and intent. An adult person
cannot become a citizen of a state by simply intending to, nor does any
one become such citizen by mere residence. The residence and the intent
must co-exist and correspond; and though, under ordinary circumstances,
the former may be sufficient evidence of the latter, it is not conclusive,
and the contrary may always be shown; and when the ques6tion of
citizenship turns on the intention with which a person has resided in a
particular state, his own testimony, under ordinary circumstances, is
entitled to great weight on the point.

[…]

“But, certainly,
it was not the intention of the [Fourteenth] amendment to make any citizen
of the United States a citizen of any particular state against his will,
in which the exigencies of his business, his social relations or
obligations, or other cause, might require his presence for a greater or
less length of time, without any intention on his part to become such
citizen. “The better opinion seems to be that a citizen of the United
States is, under the amendment, prima facie a citizen of the state wherein
he resides, and cannot arbitrarily be excluded therefrom by such state,
but that he does not become a citizen of the state against his will, and
contrary to his purpose and intention to retain an already acquired
citizenship elsewhere. The amendment is a restraining on the power of the
state, but not on the right of the person to choose and maintain his
citizenship or domicile; but it protects him in the exercise of that right
by making him a citizen of that state in which he may choose to reside
with such intention. In Robertson v. Cease, 97 U.S. 648, the court held
that, for the purpose of giving the jurisdiction to the circuit court, an
allegation that a party is a resident of a particular state is not
equivalent to an allegation that he is a citizen thereof, for the reason,
as suggested by Mr. Justice Harlan, that, even under the amendment, mere
residence in a state does not necessarily or conclusively prove one to be
a citizen thereof. And if an allegation of residence in a state is not
necessarily, even under the amendment, the equivalent of an allegation of
citizenship, then the mere fact of residence in a state is not necessarily
the equivalent of citizenship.” [Sharon v. Hill, 26 F.337 (1885),
Emphasis added]

It has never
been my intent to be a “U.S. citizen” and it has always been my intent
to be a “non-citizen U.S. national”.
I may not have known until the last four years all the
ramifications between those two distinct statuses, but had I known, I
would most certainly have chosen only “non-citizen U.S. National”
status. According to the U.S.
Supreme Court, a government cannot unilaterally sever its relationship
with its citizens by taking away any aspect of their nationality or
citizenship. See Afroyim
v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967).
Only I as a national or citizen can voluntarily and unilaterally
renounce or eliminate either my nationality or my citizen status and that
is exactly what I have done and exactly what the law
authorizes me to do.

I have gone to great
lengths to correct all government paperwork so as to reflect my true and
correct status as a “non-citizen U.S. National” by the following
means:

1.
Sent a revised SS-5 form to the IRS indicating that I am a “U.S.
National” rather than a “U.S. citizen”.

2.
Did a revocation of election under 26
CFR § 1.871-10 to remove my property from federal jurisdiction.

3.
Noticed the Secretary of State via certified mail with a proof of
mailing that I renounce my “U.S. citizen” status but maintain my
“U.S. national” status.

7.
Notified the IRS of my status as a “non-citizen U.S. National”
and therefore a “nonresident alien” for the purposes of the federal
income tax laws. Note,
however, that a person can be a “nonresident alien” without being an
alien. See Ref. (6) section 5.6.12.
Everyone who was born in a state of the union and outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the United States government is, in effect a
state-only citizen, a “non-citizen U.S. National”, and a
“nonresident alien” for the purposes of the federal income tax.
See Ref. (6), Chapters 4 and 5.

According to my research, SECNAVINST 5510.30A,
Appendix I, page I-1 (see Ref. (9)) on security clearances, indicates that
even though I am a “U.S. National”, I can still hold a U.S. security
clearance the same as a person who claims to be a “U.S. citizen”.
The reason is that 8 U.S.C.
§1101(a)(22)(B) of the Aliens and
Nationality title of the U.S. Code indicates that a “U.S. national” is
someone who “owes permanent allegiance to the United States”, which I
indeed do. By “United
States”, I mean the 50 united States of the Union of states called the
United States of America, and not necessarily the federal
corporation called the “United States” that is defined in 28 U.S.C.
§3002(15)(A).
That allegiance does not imply or infer that I am
subject to any federal statute while I am physically present outside of
federal United States or the federal zone except those that are strictly
incident to my status as a federal employee.
If this is not the case, then please inform me so and cite the
legal authority by which you make that statement, including the statute,
caselaw, and regulation that leads you to that conclusion.

Those who are “U.S. citizens” are “natives”
to the federal “United States” and all others are essentially
foreigners. There are two
types of foreigners: 1.
“non-citizen U.S. nationals” and 2.
Aliens. As a federal
employee, I work in the federal “United States” [the
federal zone] but my domicile is in a union state and outside
of the territorial jurisdiction and legislative jurisdiction of the
“United States” federal government.
This is direct result of the fact that the federal government has
no police powers or legislative jurisdiction within states of the union.
See once again Ref. (6), section 4.9 for further explanation.

In addition to being a “non-citizen U.S.
National”, I am also a federal employee under the jurisdiction of Title
5 of the U.S. Code. As a
federal employee and a “non-citizen U.S. national”, I am essentially
an immigrant when I enter the federal “United States”
[federal zone] or a federal reservation within a union state to work
because my citizenship status is other than “U.S. citizen”.
8 U.S.C. §1324b prohibits immigration-related discrimination based
on national origin or based on religious beliefs.
8 U.S.C.
§1324b(3)(A) affords this protection against
immigration-related discrimination to both “citizens or
nationals of the United States”. Because
I am a “national of the United States”, then I claim the protection of
this law, and because I work within the federal “United States” where
federal legislation applies and where the crime in this case was
committed, then the necessary jurisdiction exists to apply this law to my
situation and to the persons who have injured my rights in this instance.

For the purposes of Ref.
(2) and 5 U.S.C.
§2302(b) then, my “national origin” is that of
“U.S. national” and the evidence documented in this grievance will
also show that discrimination is occurring based on my “national
origin”. I emphasize one
last time that this choice to be other than a “U.S. citizen”
originates from my religious beliefs, which say that we as Christians may not
be citizens, but instead are sojourners and pilgrims while we are on this
earth.[1]

Philippians
3:20: “For our
citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the
Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

I as a Christian am, in
effect, a “minister of a foreign state” and the foreign state in this
case is “Heaven”. That is
the the one and only place that I intend to permanently
inhabit or reside in. Even
the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 167 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456; 42 L.Ed.
890 (1898) admitted as much:

And Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the court
[legislating from the bench, in this case], in analyzing the first clause
[of the Fourteenth Amendment in this case], observed that “the
phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ was intended to excludefrom its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or
subjects of foreign states born within the United States.”

I am a child of God, not
a child of the state. The
U.S. government is not my “parent” or my “Parens Patriae”.

Parens
patriae. "Parens patriae," literally "parent of the
country," refers traditionally to role of state as sovereign and
guardian of persons under legal disability, such as juveniles or the
insane, State of W.Va. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., C.A.N.Y., 440 F.2d 1079,
1089, and in child custody determinations, when acting on behalf of the
state to protect the interests of the child. It is the principle
that the state must care for those who cannot take care of themselves,
such as minors who lack proper care and custody from their parents.
It is a concept of standing utilized to protect those quasi-sovereign
interests such as health, comfort and welfare of the people, interstate
water rights, general economy of the state, etc. Gibbs v. Titelman,
D.C.Pa., 369 F.Supp. 38, 54.

In America, the state is
not the sovereign. Here
is what no less than the Supreme Court says about this matter:

"From
the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and Government
founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective
prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation
or State-sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In
Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here it rests
with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the
Government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents
of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign,
in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes
have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences, our rulers have none
but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any
other capacity, than as private citizens." at 472.

In America, the people (that’s me)
are the sovereigns and government was created to serve, not oppress them.
It is a fundamental tenet of law that two sovereigns, the people
and their government, have sovereign immunity from the acts or force of
the other unless some tort or wrong has occurred.
I have committed no wrong by expecting the government to honor and
respect my choice of citizenship status.

The way I have avoided being a citizen in receipt of
federal privileges is to instead to be a “non-citizen U.S. National”
or simply a “U.S. National”. This voluntary choice and this intent
is the only lawful means available to me as far as
citizenship status which does not clearly conflict with my
religious faith or prejudice my Constitutional rights.
Those in receipt of the privileges of citizenship simply cannot
have all their rights. Rights
and privileges are mutually exclusive from a legal perspective.
You trade rights to get privileges.
See Ref. (6) sections 4.2 through 4.2.3.

As you know, employees of _______________(name
of your organization) who did not
receive NMCI computers have been asked to obtain an NMCI Terminal Services
Account for their legacy computer in preparation for the termination of
their legacy email accounts. That
process was supposed to have bee completed this week by all _______________(name
of your organization) personnel, which includes myself. The
first step in the process of obtaining said Terminal Services account is
obtaining a PKI Identity Certificate from the NMCI coordinator for our
campus, who is ____________(individual
name), who works at
__________________.

Consistent with
corporate policy, I requested my certificate early last week and was
notified on Monday this week of its availability for pickup.
On May 8, 2003 at 10:30am, I went to __________(location)
as instructed by
Mr. __________(individual name) to obtain my PKI Certificate.
He handed me a DD FORM 2842 (see Enclosure (1), which is the exact
form I handed to Mr. ________________) to complete, which I did and gave back to
him. He looked at block (b)
of that form and said that he would not issue me a PKI Certificate. I explained the following to him:

1.
I have a religious objection to furnishing a Social Security Number
and that I have a First Amendment right of freedom of religion that the
government MAY NOT abridge or punish me for exercising.

2.
I have a First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech, which includes
the right to NOT communicate certain information to the government that I
choose not to disclose.

3.
The denial of a PKI Certificate renders me incapable of fully
functioning within my work environment, which therefore makes me incapable
of earning a living or competing or working on equal footing with other
coworkers.

4.
The denial of the PKI Certificate therefore amounts to an injury, a
liable, a tort, and use of undue force and coercion upon my person based
solely upon my religious beliefs. I
reminded him that he was personally liable for this injury because no law
authorizes him to deny me any right or privilege based on my failure to
disclose or use a Social Security Number.

5.
That 42 U.S.C.
§408(a) makes it a crime to compel the use of
Social Security Numbers and that he was violating the law.

6.
The Social Security website says that the use or disclosure of
Social Security Numbers is entirely voluntary.

He pointed to the line
entitled “DISCLOSURE”, which said:

DISCLOSURE:
Voluntary; however, failure to provide the information may
result in denial of issuance of a token containing PKI private keys.

I pointed to the underlined word in that line, which
says “may” and said that it didn’t say must and the
reason it didn’t say must is because the government may
not discriminate against me based on my religious beliefs.
He was dumbfounded and said that I would need to contact ________________________(name
of contact) with my grievance and that he would respond
to their conclusions and recommendations relating to my situation.

I then asked Mr.___________(name) to write on my for “Rejected”, list the reason for
rejection, and sign it. I
simply wanted evidence documenting his decision that could be used as part
of the grievance process, which I indicated I was going to initiate based
on his decision. He refused
to cooperate, in what I view as an obstruction of justice under 18 U.S.C.
§1510 (see Ref. (4)). I said that because he had violated the law, then
the gathering of such evidence amounted to a criminal investigation and
that his refusal was an obstruction of justice.

In the context of this
offense, the specific injuries incurred to me by virtue of the
discrimination demonstrated by Mr. ______ are as follows:

1.
Unable to send or receive ALL work-related email.

2.
No visibility to sponsors and customers.

3.
Poor productivity.

4.
Lack of access to other corporate resources via email.

5.
Possibility of eventually termination if unable to satisfy the
needs of my sponsor and employer without email.

6.
Public embarrassment with my sponsor for inability to perform my
job function.

7.
Necessity to create an email account on a server outside the center
in order to continue functioning.

I estimate that loss of ability to obtain NMCI
Terminal Services PKI Certificate and the email services that go with this
will cost the government probably 20% of my pay in lost productivity in
the short term. In the longer
term it could and probably would eventually lead to my termination for
being unresponsive to the sponsor and unavailable to do normal business.
Now certainly, the prospect of eventual termination and the loss of
credibility that would result from the above bothersome side-effects is a
matter of corporate concern, and a direct negative infringement of my
right to work and pay my bills. And
unless you force all employees to endure the same fate, then treating only
me this way amounts to discrimination.
It also does violence to my person, my credibility, and my work
performance and disadvantages me in my interactions with everyone I know.
The one and only reason why it is occurring is my failure to
provide a Social Security Number, which in turn is based entirely and only
on my religious beliefs. Therefore,
this discrimination is a direct result of my religious views and beliefs
and I have made this issue perfectly clear with everyone I have dealt with
at _______________(name of your organization)
who asks for a Socialist Security Number.

Back when NMCI was first being introduced about a
year ago, employees at _______________(name of
your organization) were reminded that they would all be
required to obtain a Common Access Card (CAC).
I was requested to report to the card issuing authority above the
Pass Office in _______(location) to obtain my CAC card.
I did so in approximately April of 2002.
When I did so, the person manning the desk told me that he could
not issue a card for me unless I provided a Social Security Number.
He gave me the name of the Site Security Manager for CAC, a ________
(person name). I
called Mr. _______ shortly thereafter and asked him how I could get a card
without a Social Security Number. He
said he would check on it and get back to me.
He never got back to me and I am still waiting for a determination
as to how I may obtain such a card without a Socialist
Security Number. I called him
back at least five times and he simply avoided responding to my situation.
At that time, my reasons for not wanting to use the number are the
same as they are now. My
position on Social Security Numbers has not changed since that time.

At this time, I do not presently require a Common
Access Card and so my work performance and productivity is not adversely
affected yet. But if or when
the use of these cards becomes mandatory or necessary to accomplish my
core job functions, the same situation as above with the PKI Certificate
will occur, where I simply cannot function in the organization.
Because I would like to avoid this situation, I am taking the
proactive approach of making this an issue now so that if or when use of
the CAC becomes mandatory, _______________(name
of your organization) management will have a vehicle, procedures,
and policies in place to deal with my situation.

In the last two months, issues with my security
clearance have arisen involving my Navy Reserve affiliation with _________________(name
of your organization). I
have a Secret security clearance renewal pending with DONCAF for the naval
reserves. By virtue of my
stance on citizenship issues, the naval reserve center in Mira Mesa has
first contacted the Naval Criminal Investigative Service to report that I
shouldn’t be holding a security clearance.
They were referred to DONCAF, who were then told by the Security
Officer of the Reserve Center that I was a security risk because I claimed
to not be a “U.S. citizen”. The
reserve center never bothered to inquire about the validity of my status
as a “U.S. national” or ask me what I meant by claiming that status.
I have tried to communicate to them that SECNAVINST 5510.30A,
Appendix I says that I may hold a security clearance as a “U.S.
National” but they were more interested in oppressing and harassing
someone who dared to be different than they were in the facts or the truth
or in respecting my due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments. Consequently, I
was told that DONCAF temporarily suspended my naval reserve security
clearance pending resolution of the issue of my citizenship status.

I am still waiting for a due process hearing with
DONCAF regarding this issue, and no one at DONCAF has contacted me, nor am
I able to talk to them about this directly.
They have said that I must go through the Security Officer of my
Reserve unit, but the unit I am presently attached to does not have a
Security Officer. I am
therefore left in limbo. In
the meantime, I have been involuntarily transferred to a different reserve
unit pending resolution of my case, at great inconvenience and anxiety to
me and a waste of the valuable talents that I can and should be applying
as a member of my former _________________(name
of your organization) reserve unit.

The issue of my reserve security clearance, I am told
by _____________ (person name) of ___________(name
of your organization), does not affect
my _________________(name of your organization)
clearance because they are separate clearances.
At the same time, this matter, while related to my reserve
affiliation, also touches my _________________(name
of your organization) relationship as a naval reservist because
the unit I was attached to was a _________________(name
of your organization) reserve unit.
I had nearly 14 years with that unit before I was involuntarily
transferred two months ago to a different unit and would like to
reaffiliate and remove this controversy.
I believe that my ____________(name of
your organization), ___________________
would attest to the fact that my inability to affiliate with his
unit because of the issues with my citizenship status and “national
origin” have proved to be a detriment to _________________(name
of your organization). These
issues have also caused me great emotional anxiety which would have been
entirely unnecessary if proper respect for my due process rights and a
proper regard for the underlying SECNAV instructions and laws had been
observed by the reserve center, and more specifically by _____________
(person name) at the Reserve Center. Once
again, this type of discrimination is completely uncalled for and
completely inconsistent with the Navy’s Equal Opportunity program and
mission. I believe it is also
being accomplished based on a personal agenda by ____________
(individual name) and is not within his lawful or
delegated authority.

The remedies I would
like to propose in this case that would satisfy all of my concerns are as
follows:

1.
I would like for the government, including _________________(name
of your organization), the Navy, and the DOD, to stop
trying to compel or force me to violate my religious beliefs regarding
Socialist Security Numbers by forcing me to either have them or to use
them. The way to make this
happen is to allow me to be to fully function at _______________(name
of your organization) in all respects without
using a Socialist Security Number and without being
discriminated against because I won’t use such a number.
That means I need advanced written authorization from my management
to obtain and receive equal treatment as other employees
whenever I encounter a situation where an SSN is requested and I do not
provide one. Such occasions
include, but are not limited to:

2.
The issue of my citizenship status needs to be clarified and
recognized formally and by written affidavit by an authority
at _________________(name of your organization)
who is able to make such a determination.
This document will then be used as a basis for my future
interactions with security, payroll, NMCI, and other personnel whenever my
citizenship and “national origin” status are challenged.
Without such a written determination, the level of legal ignorance
by personnel working in these areas regarding citizenship law will result
in continued and perhaps worsening
discrimination related to my “national origin” as a “U.S.
national”.

3.
That the SSN appearing in my personnel record be completely and
permanently removed because it is incorrect.
It is incorrect because it is not MY number.
I never voluntarily requested it nor consented to its use.
My parents did so without my informed or adult consent and I cannot
be held responsible for the commitments or actions of others made in my
behalf while I was a minor, nor has the government afforded me an
administrative means to rescind the number that I to not consent to using.
This amounts to duress. Up
until now I believed that the use of SSNs was effectively involuntary and
did not know of a way to have it expunged from my record. The number I have been using was obtained through fraud and
duress on the part of the government and the continued use of it is also a
matter of duress. Any
information provided by me to others that is provided under unlawful
duress or involuntarily is not admissible as evidence in a
court of law. See Weeks v.
United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) and Ref. (6), section 8.4.8 for
further clarification. Because
the SSN information is incorrect and submitted under duress and
inadmissible in court, then I contest that it should not and cannot be
maintained in my personnel record. Under the authority of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C.
§552a(d)(2),
I demand that this erroneous information be purged from my record and that
my record be amended appropriately. The
following link also provides a complete description of why the SSN was
both obtained and used under duress and involuntarily in my case:http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Emancipation/SSAssevOfCoercion.htm

If you disagree with the above Social Security Asseveration of
Coercion, I respectfully request legal evidence, statutes, and
implementing regulations that authorize you to disregard this demand to
purge inaccurate information from my personnel files.
You will note that according to the Declaration of Independence,
government derives all of its legitimate and just authority
from the voluntary consent of the people, and that anything done
nonconsentually is inherently unjust and oppressive and illegal and should
be avoided, because it is tyranny and the antithesis of freedom:

“We hold
these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure
these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is
the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness.” [Declaration of
independence]

4.
If anything in this grievance is slandered or rebuked as being
“frivolous”, then I would like for the person attempting to do the
slandering and discriminating to refute evidence and findings right out of
the government’s own mouth proving most of the contentions I have made
in this letter. This is the
only way to preserve my right to due process under the Fifth Amendment and
equal protection of the law and to stop the discrimination I have
experienced because of the uniqueness of my situation.
The evidence I would like refuted is found in Ref. (8) above.
I would like an affidavit under penalty of perjury containing
answers to the questions in that reference, but only if the factfinder or
deciding official addressing this grievance rules adversely against me on
any claims made by me about citizenship issues described in this document.

All of the offenses
addressed in this grievance and EEO complaint are related to my religious
views. My choice to not
accept or use an SSN is a direct result of my religious beliefs as
described earlier in section 1.
My choice of being a “U.S. national” rather than a “U.S.
citizen” is also a direct result of my religious beliefs as described
earlier in section 2.
Section 2000e(j) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act defines
“religion” as follows:

Section 2000e

(j) The term ``religion'' includes all aspects of religious observance and
practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he
is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's or prospective
employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the
conduct of the employer's business.

The core issue in this
case is whether accommodating my religious beliefs would impose “undue
hardship” upon my employer or the government.
Since the term “hardship” is nowhere defined in Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, then we can’t resolve this matter easily
or objectively. Additional
considerations identified by the U.S. Supreme Court relating to Social
Security Numbers include the issue of whether there is a “compelling
public interest” involved in forcing me to violate my religious beliefs.
See U.S. v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982).

Before you begin
attempting to answer the above issues I have raised and decide on the
remedy you would like to pursue, I would like to remind you of the
following:

1.
I do not personally believe that it would impose “undue
hardship” upon _________________(name of your
organization) to create a registry of local employee numbers
and use these instead of SSN’s in all their dealings with the employees.
The costs or inconveniences that might be incurred would be
minimal. Respect for
Constitutional Rights cannot, after all, be made into a dollars and cents
issue because my rights are simply not negotiable nor do they have a price
tag.

2.
Even if your computer systems will only accept
SSN’s, there is no reason why you cannot invent a number that is not
being used but which is not a number issued by the Social Security
Administration and use that. This
would an additional procedure required whenever entering new data into the
system. One additional field
could be added to computer databases requiring SSN’s indicating whether
the number is locally administered or whether it is issued by the
Socialist Security Administration.

3.
If you want to claim that the costs of accommodating the above
changes would be prohibitive, I would argue that the costs of NOT
implementing them would be far worse and that the damage to
productivity incurred by me and the others like me to our productivity and
employment would far outweigh the short-term cost of implementing the
needed changes.

4.
The government cannot claim that it is “unduly burdened” in the
case of activities that it is not lawfully allowed to accomplish in the
first place, as evidenced by Constitutional authority, statutory
authority, an implementing regulation, and specific delegated authority.
I request that in each instance of “undue burden” described by
the government, that it present all four of the simultaneous prerequisites
indicated here (Constitution section, statute, implementing regulation,
and delegation order) for the burdened activity BEFORE it attempts to
claim that there is an “undue burden”.

How burdensome would it
be to accommodate my religious beliefs?
The main area where Social Security Numbers are most necessary
within _________________(name of your
organization) is in the area of payroll tax withholding and the
interface to the Defense Financial Accounting Service (DFAS).
As far as payroll taxes, my specific situation is as follows:

1.
I have removed all references to my SSN on my W-8BEN withholding
allowance form(s).

2.
_________________(name of your organization) and the Department of
the Navy may only release that specific information about me to the IRS
that appears on the withholding forms I submit if I authorize it because
it is subject to the Privacy Act.

3.
The withholding allowance forms I submitted specifically stated
that _________________(name of your
organization)DOES NOT have my permission
to release ANY INFORMATION about me, my pay, or SSNs to any third party.
Failure to observe this demand is a criminal violation of the
Privacy Act of 1974 found in 5 U.S.C. §552a and of the Fourth Amendment.
All information about me that is attached to my Social Security
Number I considered to be my copyrighted property and you do
not have the authority to disclose copyrighted material without my
specific written permission.

4.
The only territory over which the IRS is authorized to operate
under the Constitution and the U.S. Code is federal territories and
possessions and nowhere else.
It certainly would be operating illegally to affect anyone living
in a state of the Union. See Chapters 4 and 5 of Ref. (6) for detailed
evidence supporting this.

6.
If the IRS is not an agency of the federal government, then what is
it? I have researched this
matter for three years and the conclusions of my research are documented
in Chapter 7 of Ref. (6) and Chapter 9 of Ref. (12). My research confirms
the following astounding but quite provable facts:

6.1.
The IRS is not an agency of the federal government.
See Ref. (6) section 7.1. and Ref. (12) chapt. 9.

6.2.
The Supreme Court confirmed in Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441
U.S. 281 (1979) in footnote 23 that no law has ever authorized
the creation of the Internal Revenue Service. See Ref. (6), section 7.1.

6.3.
The IRS is a federal corporation homed out of Puerto Rico in
which the U.S. Government owns at least 51% of stock as required by 28
U.S.C. §1349. See Ref. (12),
Chapter 9.

7.
Because the IRS is not a federal agency but instead is a federal
corporation, no legitimate federal agency has the lawful authority to
disclose any information to it under the authority of the Privacy
Act, 5 U.S.C.
§552a. The
Privacy Act only authorizes disclosure of information
between agencies of the U.S. government and not
between an agency and a federal corporation, which is what the IRS is.

8.
Because the IRS is not an agency of the federal
government, then it is a foreign organization.
All persons in payroll who process IRS forms and facilitate the
collection of federal taxes on behalf of a foreign organization known as
the IRS are voluntarily acting as “agents of foreign principals”.
18 U.S.C. §219, which is entitled
“Officers and employees acting as foreign principals” indicates that
all officers and employees of the United States government who are acting
as agents of foreign principals are required to register
under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.
Those who fail to do so can be fined and imprisoned for 2 years.
The question is, has everyone in _________________(name
of your organization) payroll and at DFAS who processes federal
tax forms been properly registered under 18 U.S.C.
§219?
If they have not, then they are violating the law and can be
imprisoned for two years. Chances
are they haven’t, so they aren’t even authorized to process or collect
these forms by law anyway! See
Ref. (6), Section 5.4.14. Furthermore,
they cannot legally act as federal withholding agents unless they have
filed an IRS form 2678 and that form has been approved by the Secretary of
the Treasury. Can you show me
this completed form with the Secretary’s signature?

The point of talking
about the above issues is that you can’t claim you are inconvenienced or
“unduly burdened” in the process of collecting or accounting for
payroll taxes that the law doesn’t authorize _________________(name
of your organization) to collect!
You can only legitimately claim that you are burdened if and
only if the activity that is allegedly being burdened is a lawful
activity that is specifically authorized by the Constitution, federal
statutes, implementing regulations, and a specific delegation of authority
order from the top on down to the person doing it.
What I’m asking you to do is simply prove that you even have the
lawful authority to act as a “withholding agent” under 26 U.S.C.
§7701(a)(16)
before you can even claim that the task of doing that
function is subjected to “undue hardship”.
You simply cannot assume that you have this authority, because
doing so violates my due process rights:

“Due
process of law. Law in
its regular course of administration through courts of justice.
Due process of law in each particular case means such an exercise
of the powers of the government as the settled maxims of law permit and
sanction, and under such safeguards for the protection of individual
rights as those maxims prescribe for the class of cases to which the one
in question belongs. A
course of legal proceedings according to those rules and principles which
have been established in our systems of jurisprudence for the enforcement
and protection of private rights. To give such proceedings any validity, there must be a
tribunal competent by its constitution—that is, by the law of the
creation—to pass upon the subject-matter of the suit;
and, if that involves merely a determination of the personal
liability of the defendant, he must be brought within its
jurisdiction by service of process within the state, or his voluntary
appearance. Pennoyer
v. Neff, 96 U.S. 733, 24 L.Ed. 565. Due
process of law implies the right of the person affected thereby to be
present before the tribunal which pronounces judgment upon the question of
life, liberty, or property, in its most comprehensive sense; to be heard,
by testimony or otherwise, and to have the right of controverting, by
proof, every material fact which bears on the question of right in the
matter involved. If
any question of fact or liability be conclusively be presumed [rather than
proven] against him, this is not due process of law.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 500]

The way you can prove
that you have lawful authority to act as a “withholding agent” as
legally defined is to refute the law and words right of the government’s
own mouth showing that you don’t have the authority to act as a
withholding agent by answering the questions found below, each of which
has evidence to support the points made:

If any aspect of the
above conclusions are incorrect, then I request a written rebuttal in
affidavit form using only law and evidence.
I’m not interested in opinions and the IRS’ own Internal
Revenue Manual at section 4.10.7.2.9.8 says that federal court cites below
the Supreme Court may not be cited to apply to more than the one taxpayer
in question who was the object of the suit:

IRM,
4.10.7.2.9.8 (05/14/99)

“Decisions
made at various levels of the court system are considered to be
interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or
taxpayers to support a position. Certain court cases lend more weight to a
position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the
law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The
Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For
examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code.

Decisions
made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District Courts, or Claims Court,
are binding on the Service only for the particular taxpayer and the years
litigated. Adverse decisions of lower courts do not require the Service to
alter its position for other taxpayers.”

Therefore, you can only
cite Supreme court cases if you wish to quote caselaw because these are
the same constraints applying to the Internal Revenue Service.

Without a point-by-point
rebuttal, I shall assume that you and the U.S. government acquiesce and
agree with these conclusions and research if I do not receive a rebuttal
in 30 days. Simply calling
them “frivolous” without providing evidence and legal authority to
rebut them is not only “frivolous”, but hypocritical.
Calling the very serious legal issues raised here or the defense of
my Constitutional rights “frivolous” would be verbally abusive,
slanderous, discriminatory, and irresponsible.
It would be an injustice and an evasion of the issues of justice
raised and a constructive case of obstruction of justice in violation of
18 U.S.C. Chapter 73:

Frivolous.
Of little weight or importance.
A pleading is "frivolous" when it is clearly insufficient
on its face and does not controvert the material points of the opposite
pleading, and is presumably interposed for mere purposes of delay or to
embarrass the opponent. A claim or defense is frivolous if a
proposent can present no rational argument based upon the evidence or law
in support of that claim or defense. Liebowitz v. Aimexco Inc.,
Col.App., 701 P.2d 140, 142. Frivolous
pleadings may be amended to proper form or ordered stricken under federal
and state rules of civil procedure."
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 668]

The other main area
where SSNs are used other than payroll is security clearances. The collection of personal information for doing security
clearances is certainly a necessary and proper and lawful role for
government to do. However, in
the case of security clearances, the government:

1.
Has failed to demonstrate that it CANNOT perform a security
investigation or clearance check without an SSN.

2.
Has failed to demonstrate that it would be “unduly burdened”
without the ability to use SSNs in this case.

3.
Has failed to explain why they could use SSN’s for the security
clearance and not for any other purpose.
The government could, for instance, keep SSN information related to
security clearances in a special sealed area of my personnel record and
not allow it to be revealed to any third party or used for any other purpose.

Because I simply cannot function without email and
because I can’t get corporate email, then I am compelled to provide my
own email services while I am waiting for a resolution to this dilemma
that government “disservants” have put me into.
Consequently, I am compelled to take emergency and temporary
measures to deal with the situation.
What I must do is use my cable modem account at home to create a
new email address and to have all my _______________(name
of your organization) email forwarded to that
address from this point on. Once
you have examined this grievance and taken the appropriate remedy of
hopefully authorizing me to obtain PKI Certificates without an SSN, then I
will delete this temporary account and move my email server back to _______________(name
of your organization). If you disagree
with this approach, then please provide an acceptable temporary
alternative that allows me to continue to function.

I apologize for the very detailed legal nature of
this grievance. It certainly
is not my intention to overburden you with technical information or
inconvenience you in any way. In
this situation, however, I am simply unable to address these issues any
other way. I don’t enjoy
being legalistic, but legalism on the part of government “disservants”
is the very reason that I have been put into the compromising situation of
feeling discriminated against by the government to begin with.
I am only using legalism here because I have to respond to legalism
on the part of the government in mandating the use of what I view as
Satanic Socialist Security Numbers that are used to invade my privacy,
oppress my Constitutional rights, and undermine my relationship with my
sacred God.

When I joined the U.S. military, I took an oath to
“support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to
the same”. I believe that
the content of this grievance completely fulfills that calling and that I
should not be harassed, discriminated against, or persecuted
in any way for submitting it or for expecting a government that
conspicuously abides by the laws that I have gone to such great lengths to
investigate and obey myself. In
fact, the First Amendment Petition Clause gives me the right to petition
my government for a redress of grievances and that is exactly
what I am doing here. A right is not a right unless it can be enforced,
and the means of enforcement in this case is for the government to be held
accountable in dutifully responding point-by-point to the specific
legal issues raised in this letter and all the references and enclosures.
Any other approach would be frivolous and without legal basis.

I’m simply asking and
expecting the government to obey the law and provide a legal excuse or
justification for why it is acting illegally in my case.
The foundation of our Constitutional government is that we are a
society of laws and not of men.

“The government of the United States has been
emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men.
It will certainly cease to deserve that high appellation, if the
laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right.”
[Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)]

The federal government
is a creature of the law and a creation of the sovereign people in the
sovereign states of the union. We
as federal employees are the fiduciaries and servants of the
people inhabiting the states of this great country.
Absolutely everything the federal government and any federal
employee does on behalf of the sovereign people it serves must
be authorized by law and by explicit delegation of authority.
Even the Supreme Court agrees:

We start
with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of
enumerated powers. See U.S. Const., Art. I, 8. As James Madison wrote,
"[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the
federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the
State governments are numerous and indefinite." The Federalist No.
45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). This constitutionally mandated
division of authority "was adopted by the Framers to ensure
protection of our fundamental liberties." Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501
U.S. 452, 458 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Just
as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the
Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power
in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the
Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either
front." Ibid.

[U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)]

Note the phrase
“enumerated powers”, which is a way of saying there must be an
explicit authority for everything the federal government does found in the
Constitution. If the federal
government or an employee as an agent of the government can’t provide a
specific statute and implementing regulation and delegation order that
authorizes the employee to do what he or she are doing to me, or if what
the employee is doing in this case oppresses my First Amendment freedom of
religion or freedom of speech, then quite frankly that actor or agent of
the government is acting illegally and unlawfully and becomes personally
liable for his misdeeds committed outside his lawful authority:

“Unlawful.
That which is contrary to, prohibited, or unauthorized by law.
That which is not lawful. The
acting contrary to, or in defiance of the law; disobeying or disregarding
the law. Term is
equivalent to “without excuse or justification.”
State v. Noble, 90 N.M. 360, 563 P.2d 1153, 1157.
While necessarily not implying the element of criminality, it is
broad enough to include it. [Black’s
Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1536]

Those persons in
government who evade or avoid understanding or investigating the lawful
limits on their authority or who oppress those who do so or call them
“frivolous” are, quite frankly, communists by the admission of our
very own U.S. Congress, which said in talking about the Communist party:

The Congress
finds and declares that the Communist Party of the United States [consisting
of the IRS, DOJ, and a corrupted federal judiciary], although
purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a
conspiracy to overthrow the [dejure] Government of the United States [and
replace it with a defacto government ruled by a the judiciary]. It
constitutes an authoritarian dictatorship
[IRS, DOJ, and corrupted federal judiciary in collusion] within
a [constitutional]
republic,
demanding for itself the rights and privileges
[including immunity from prosecution for their wrongdoing in violation of Article
1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution] accorded to
political parties, but denying to all others
the liberties [Bill of Rights] guaranteed by the Constitution.
Unlike political parties, which evolve their policies and programs through
public means, by the reconciliation of a wide variety of individual views,
and submit those policies and programs to the electorate at large for
approval or disapproval, the policies and programs of the Communist Party
are secretly [by corrupt judges and the IRS in complete disregard of
the tax laws] prescribed for it by the foreign leaders of the
world Communist movement [the IRS and Federal Reserve]. Its
members [the Congress, which was terrorized to do IRS bidding
recently by the framing of Congressman
Traficant] have no part in determining its goals, and
are not permitted to voice dissent to party objectives. Unlike members of
political parties, members of the Communist Party are recruited for
indoctrination with respect to its objectives and methods, and are
organized, instructed, and disciplined to carry into action slavishly the
assignments given them by their hierarchical chieftains. Unlike
political parties, the Communist Party [thanks to a corrupted federal
judiciary] acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations upon
its conduct or upon that of its members.
The Communist Party is relatively small numerically, and gives
scant indication of capacity ever to attain its ends by lawful political
means. The peril inherent in its operation arises not from its
numbers, but from its failure to acknowledge any limitation as to the
nature of its activities, and its dedication to the proposition that the
present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be
brought to ruin by any available means, including resort toforceandviolence
[or using income taxes].Holding that doctrine, its role
as the agency of a hostileforeignpower [the Federal Reserve and the American Bar Association (ABA)]
renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger to the
security of the United States. It is the means whereby individuals
are seduced into the service of the world Communist movement, trained to
do its bidding, and directed and controlled in the conspiratorial
performance of their revolutionary services. Therefore, the Communist
Party should be outlawed

Indeed, what I have
experienced in my specific case provides abundant evidence that we do
indeed have an “communist authoritarian dictatorship”, to use the
Congress’ own words above. It
is an authoritarian dictatorship that:

1.
Refuses to acknowledge the lawful limits of its power.

2.
Refuses to be accountable to the people of the United States that
it was created to serve and protect.

3.
Refuses to respond to the legal issues raised in Petitions of
Redress such as this, in spite of the fact that the Petition Clause
contained in the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees this right
to all persons.

4.
Harasses, intimidates, invades the privacy of, and persecutes those
who question or challenge its authority.

5.
Abuses its taxing power to harass and persecute and oppress those
who question its authority.

6.
Is the antithesis of what the founding fathers intended and the
antithesis of a free country founded on liberty.

7.
Is anathema to the Christian faith and the family by promoting
abortion, homosexuality, and the oppression of religious expression and by
coercing people to get marriage licenses instead of having private
marriage contracts in order to have their marriage legally recognized.

8.
Spreads financial slavery and servitude throughout the world by
colluding with a private corporation called the Federal Reserve to make
debt slaves not only of the American people, but of the entire world.

I’m simply asking for legal justification for what
authorizes the government to injure me the way it is so clearly doing.
This injury is a matter of grave anxiety and concern, and I lose
sleep over it. I worry about
whether America has indeed become a police state.
I worry as I watch our Constitutional Republic degenerating into a
totalitarian socialist democracy devoid of individual rights.
See Ref. (6) Sections 4.5 through 4.5.16.
I worry that the information provided about me to third parties by
my employer will be abused as a means or a tool to persecute, harass, and
punish me for my political and religious views.
The fact that I even have to feel this kind of fear about a bloated
socialist government that has run amock is the most compelling evidence of
why I feel that I simply must do something about this
situation now before it is too late.
This is not paranoia by any means, but a rational fear based on
overwhelming evidence of government fraud and Treason against the
constitution. At the same
time, I am certainly not suggesting that I could or would
use my government employment as a means of political activism because that
would clearly be wrong. I am
simply saying that the government’s influence on my private life needs
to be carefully limited and controlled because if it isn’t, then my
Constitutional rights will be threatened and I will become a target of
prosecution for my political views. The
main vehicle for such persecution is the Slave Surveillance Number and a
severely corrupted federal judicial system.

Lastly, I wish to emphasize that my loyalty and
allegiance to these United States is beyond dispute.
I love my country dearly and I would die for her.
That is why I have faithfully served in the U.S. Navy reserves for
over 25 years and at _________________(name of
your organization) for over 20 years. I was born here and I have never expatriated my “U.S.
nationality”. “U.S.
nationality” is the only thing I need to have in order to serve in the
military, to hold a security clearance, and to collect the military
retirement that I worked hard to earn.
See Ref. (6), section 8.5.3.13.
I neither need nor want to be a “U.S. citizen” and anything
that isn’t consentual isn’t lawful in this case.
If you don’t understand what this means, then please at least
take the time to understand what I am saying using Ref. (6) chapter 4 before
making the rash mistake of discriminating against me because of my
“national origin”.

At the same time, I’m
not obligated to:

1.
Stand idly by while tyrants and bureaucrats destroy our freedoms
and constitutional rights in the courts and through unconstitutional
legislation.

2.
Obey federal statutes or regulations that don’t apply to me while
on this federal reservation.

4.
Be subject to federal law and federal statutes not
related directly to my government employment when I leave this federal
reservation and the federal “United States”.

5.
Obey any government servant who can’t provide or describe the
detailed lawful authority that authorizes him or her to impose a duty upon
me. We are a society of laws
and not of men and that is the foundation of what it means to be that.
See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L.Ed. 60
(1803).

6.
Allow the government to dictate what I do in my private life, or to
influence or affect my private life or my personal privacy while off-base
in any way by compromising my privacy and becoming an “informant”
against me to third parties who aren’t even part of the U.S. government,
such as the IRS.

I love my job and my coworkers here at _________________(name
of your organization) and I believe the work that I do is
important to this code and to the mission of this organization.
I work very hard to maintain the good reputation that this center
both deserves and enjoys. I
respectfully request that you afford me the same opportunity to serve here
that other employees enjoy and yet have my First Amendment religious
beliefs respected and protected, but not necessarily advocated,
by the management of this organization.
I relish the opportunity to continue to faithfully and honorably
serve you in this position and to be fully functional and fully empowered
to meet all of the many responsibilities imposed upon me in that position.
The cost of not allowing me this opportunity would
far outweigh the cost of accommodating my religious beliefs.

If the issues discussed in this grievance are unclear
to you in any way, then I would be happy to meet with you and provide any
evidence or information that you feel you need in order to make an
informed and just decision about this matter.
Thanks you for your generous attention to this complex but very
important matter.

Very Respectfully,

<<YOUR
NAME>>

PROOF OF SERVICE:

Signature of person accepting service of this
document:____________________________________________